Thanks Haruna
I like the way you playing it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Haruna Darbo" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 3:31:19 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: The Daily News: Discourse With Halifa Sallah
Thanx camaraLaye for sharing. Could it be that Ousainou and Halifa are indeed saying the same things but in artfully different ways? I kept scratching my head all through the interviews conducted by the Daily News. How can two men of such stature and intellect not come together for commoner purpose??????? The ink is not dry on that prospect yet. And I'll be damned if I should abandon the challenge. There is no fundamental difference in the narration of their stories. The apparent mirages issue from tense, vocabulary, and adjective. Just read over the two interviews. What binds the Plinys is more powerful than what separates them. It will be wicked fate should they remain at gratuitous loggerhead for idle sakes.
Thanx again camaraLaye for sharing. The work has only just begun. Haruna.
-----Original Message-----
From: Momodou Camara <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, Oct 30, 2009 4:27 am
Subject: The Daily News: Discourse With Halifa Sallah
Discourse With Halifa Sallah
By Saikou Ceesay http://www.dailynews.gm/index.php?id=dn_home&tx_wecdiscussion[single]=84706 In this series of interviews, we bring for you an exclusive interview with
Halifa Sallah, former flag bearer of the NADD in the 2006 Presidential
elections. It is our objective to bring to light controversies surrounding the
failure of the Gambian opposition leaders to form a united front capable of
being a credible alternative to the APRC regime.
We started with Omar Jallow (alias OJ) of the PPP, then Lawyer Darboe of the UDP
who broke ranks with the alliance in the run up to the 2006 Presidential
elections; and in this edition it is Halifa Sallah, the Coordinator of the
opposition alliance NADD. Below are excerpts of the interview:
Could we say that heads of opposition parties are not committed to the idea of a
united opposition front in the country?
To form a united opposition cannot be seen as a principle. The principle is to
build a genuine opposition which could bring about a genuine multiparty system
and genuine change. The building of a United Opposition is a tactic under
conditions of governance which does not create options for genuine multi party
contest. For example if the procedure existed for a second round of voting in
the absence of 50 percent majority opposition parties would go on their own to
seek the mandate of the people so that each will know its weight if they wish to
forge an alliance in the second round. In the absence of that a united
opposition was the missed opportunity Gambia needed to bring about a genuine
democratic environment for multi party contest. In my view those who are
interested in change would be committed to the tactics but those who are not
will always put their aspiration to occupy a post above the objectives of
bringing about change to protect and promote the liberty, dignity and prosperity
of the people.
Is it a requirement of the signed MOU that NADD could be registered as a
political party?
The agreement is for NADD to put up candidates in the presidential, National
Assembly and Council elections. This is clearly stipulated in article 8 of the
memorandum of understanding. Allow me to quote it in avoidance of doubt. It
states: “The selection of the candidate of the Alliance for the Presidential,
National Assembly and Council elections shall be done by consensus: provided
that in the event of an impasse selection shall be done by holding a primary
election restricted to party delegates on the basis of equal number of delegates
comprising the chairman, chairwoman and youth leader of each party from each
village/ward in a constituency. Article 16 states that the Alliance shall have
an emblem, colour, motto and symbol…” There is no doubt that NADD was formed
with the intention to put up candidates under its umbrella. It is the election
laws which say that NADD could not put up candidates in its name until it was
registered with the IEC. The election laws did not have any provision on how to
register an alliance. The IEC had mandate to decide on issues that are not
provided for by law. The Executive committee decided to prepare for NADD’s
registration under the existing laws and leave the IEC to decide the final
outcome.
Can we say that the criteria set in the MOU for the registration of candidates
was met only by the UDP?
Selection of Candidate was based on two fundamental principles. It had to be
done either through unanimity or through a Primary. A UDP affiliated person or
any body could have been selected unanimously. In terms of primary delegates had
to be party chairwomen, chairmen and youth leaders from each ward. The
contention is that if a primary was held a UDP affiliated person could have been
selected as a candidate. This is now a matter of mere speculation since the UDP
leader opted to resign from NADD instead of calling for a primary.
Do you think national debate is the way forward for the opposition parties as
mentioned in Foroyaa’s Friday 23 October editorial?
A country needs a credible Government and a credible opposition. Since the
Government is afraid of a debate the opposition could start a healthy debate for
the people to learn to listen to divergent views and make in formed decision as
to which group of people should form a government and which group should serve
as major opposition party to monitor and check the activities of government. In
short, Obama and Clinton did engage in debates but that did not make them
enemies at the end. Debate is the life blood of a democratic society. Without it
a multi party system becomes a vegetable.
It is believed that in politics what matters is number, so why political heads
like your humble self opted for NADD candidacy when UDP leader should be
nominated as suggested by others?
I had no interest in becoming a presidential candidate. I have been with Sidia
for years and he stood as presidential Candidate. I had no interest in being
coordinator. If I had my own free will I would not have accepted to be
coordinator of an alliance. I accepted to be a coordinator because I felt that
duty has called on me to do so. I accepted to be a Presidential candidate
because I do not run away from responsibilities when they are unanimously
entrusted. For your information one must distinguish two phases of NADD’s
process of nominating a presidential candidate, that is, the phase before the
UDP leader resigned from NADD and the phase after he resigned from NADD. Before
the resignation of the UDP leader he had the option to recommend for the holding
of a primary where numbers would have counted and Halifa Sallah may never have
been part of that contest.
After the resignation of Darboe and the pulling out of UDP and NRP the issue of
numbers did not arise since the committee established to nominate a Presidential
candidate did agree unanimously to select me. Rejecting their nomination was not
a responsible option. It is also important to point out that NADD was not
preoccupied with the number of votes a person had in previous elections but was
formed to ensure that our collective strength could enable an electable
candidate to win. The facts revealed by the results of the 2006 Presidential
elections confirm that numbers do not always add up. In short, in the 1999 -2002
report of the IEC which was submitted to the National Assembly it is stated that
the UDP leader had 149,448 votes while the NRP leader had 35,671 votes. The
expectation was that if the two parties formed an alliance in 2006 they will get
an equivalent of their two results in the 2001 Presidential elections which
amounted to185, 119.
When the two parties left NADD and formed their Alliance along with GPDP, the
UDP led Alliance managed to get 104,808 and not the 185,119 votes anticipated.
However when the NADD took part in bye elections before its disintegration, it
had the upper hand in popular votes. Numbers do count sometimes. However under
given circumstances it is tactics that bring the numbers. That is how Tumani
Touray became the President of Mali. He met parties with majorities but he was
the electable candidate and won on an Independent ticket. We must find out what
the people want to succeed.
Can you tell us what justifies the registration of NADD after knowing that it
would lead to the lost of opposition seats in the National Assembly?
I have already said that it was a requirement of the law for a political entity
to be registered with the IEC before it could be put up as a candidate. We
formed an umbrella Party and had to register it for any body to stand as a
Candidate in its name. The constitution has provided for the formation of an
Umbrella Party in the form of a merger. In such a case no seat would be lost.
Moreover the advantages of establishing NADD outweighed the disadvantages of
losing the seats which could be regained in a bye election which is what
happened.
Can you tell us the main obstacle that led to the failure of the NADD coalition?
NADD was not a homogenous group. It was heterogonous in principle and
aspirations. The only thing that could have kept it together is recognition and
adherence to its articles and institutions. The solution was there to handle an
impasse in selecting a Presidential candidate. This was not put in place. My
honest opinion is that the leaders submitted to a political process they either
did not understand or did not believe in and when it became clear what it
entailed they abandoned the process.
Why was it a mistake to withdraw your nomination as NADD candidate and later
come for it?
The UDP leader caused great confusion by making reference to the first attempt
to select a Presidential Candidate without giving an accurate picture of what
happened. He mentioned that in the first instance my nomination was withdrawn
but introduced later by Sam Sarr on the grounds that the first withdrawal was a
mistake. A big debate unfolded among the executive as to what should be done
after the successful launching of NADD. Some proposed that the launching should
take place in every division to enable the members of the different parties to
work together as NADD members. Others felt that we should proceed with the
selection of a presidential candidate before popularizing the NADD agenda.
Eventually, it was agreed that a date should be agreed to do the selection.
On the day of the selection, a delegate of the NRP and another from NDAM
nominated and seconded the candidature of OJ. The UDP delegate nominated the UDP
leader. Sidia Jatta and Amie Sillah who represented PDOIS nominated and seconded
Halifa Sallah’s candidature. I was surprise and requested to speak to Sidia
Jatta privately. Sidia told me that their proposal was for a criteria to be
drawn for selection and if that fails they should resort to a primary. He
indicated that the two of them had to make a quick decision to select me so that
they PDOIS would not be seen to lack a choice since delegates were making
choices without criteria. We both recalled article 8 which indicated that the
executive could only select someone on the basis of unanimity. Otherwise we
should go to a primary. Since more than one person was already nominated it was
clear that there was an impasse.
Advancing my name was a futile exercise. Sidia therefore withdrew my nomination.
The executive decided to adjourn and meet again to see whether the impasse could
be overcome. At that meeting Sam replaced Amie Sillah. I do not recall him
saying that it was a mistake to withdraw my candidature. You may talk to him for
further clarification. I remember the arguments he gave regarding the
establishment of the criteria to guide the selection and the Chairman insisting
that if he has a nomination to make he should do so. Sam did say that he was
putting Halifa Sallah nomination forward again. I think the action was more a
sign of protest so that the executive will work on some criteria rather than
just making conflicting nominations which could lead us nowhere. All the
nominations were eventually set aside and a committee was set up to work on a
criteria for selection. This was the outcome of the first debate for selection
of a Presidential Candidate. Up to that point no executive member had proposed
for a primary.
Is it correct that there is insincerity among heads of opposition leaders?
No one has any grounds to accuse any one of insincerity. The Leader of the NDAM
and the Interim Secretary General of the PPP were part of the UDP Alliance in
2001 and things fell apart after the elections. The NRP had even taken over the
blue colour of the PPP when it was banned in 1996. Hence the animosities were
already there. Each had an interest to pursue. Just like constitutions protect
people with diverse interest NADD created principles, procedures and
institutions which could foster unity been diversity. We contested elections and
won them irrespective of the antagonistic contradictions between some of the
leaders. Each just behaved as expected. Those who felt disappointed are those
who expected more than what NADD was worth. Neither PDOIS nor my humble self
regrets being part of NADD. We were constantly accused of putting ideological
purity over the need to unite to bring about change in the Gambia.
We sacrificed everything to prove our critics wrong. Now we can move about with
a clear conscience. I proposed a party led alliance to be formed six months
before the 2006 Presidential election which is in line with the Agenda of the
UDP but none of the parties endorsed it. We also agreed to hold a primary incase
of an impasse none of the parties proposed to have it. There is need for each to
draw vital lessons and move away from passing moral judgments. As the old saying
goes those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Could we say that heads of opposition parties are not committed to the idea of
united opposition in the country?
To form a united opposition cannot be seen as a principle. The principle is to
build a genuine opposition which could bring about a genuine multiparty system
and genuine change. The building of a United Opposition is a tactic under
conditions of governance which does not create options for genuine multi party
contest. For example if the procedure existed for a second round of voting in
the absence of 50 percent majority opposition parties would go on their own to
seek the mandate of the people so that each will know its weight if they wish to
forge an alliance in the second round. In the absence of that a united
opposition was the missed opportunity Gambia needed to bring about a genuine
democratic environment for multi party contest. In my view those who are
interested in change would be committed to the tactics but those who are not
will always put their aspiration to occupy a post above the objectives of
bringing about change to protect and promote the liberty, dignity and prosperity
of the people.
Do you know that Gambians are of the view that the ultimate decision to select
any Presidential candidate is theirs?
Since I stepped foot on my home land over 30 years ago I have been working to
ensure that the sovereign Gambian people do know that it is their sovereign
right and authority to determine which person becomes their Presidential
candidate and office holder among other positions of representation. I am sure
many Gambians are fully aware of their sovereign powers to determine their
manner of government and to criticize, scrutinize and restrain their leaders.
Unfortunately there are many others who still submit to intimidation, inducement
and prejudices based on blood ties, place of origin, gender, tribe and other
status. Our duty is to open their eyes and all of us will become free and
prosperous. In fact, I am now calling for the Alliance of the people as the
starting point for ensuring alliance among the political elite. People have
crticised NADD for being a closet agreement which we are now trying to explain
to the people. Agenda 2011 aims to start the debate about unity from the level
of the people. All political forces and parties in the country should explain
what type of Unity they stand for and how it could be put into effect. The
people would then be able to determine what is realistic and what is not.
Does the Gambia have a history of self-perpetuating government and if so is APRC
a self perpetuating government?
Gambia does have a history of self perpetuating Government. We have never had a
peaceful transfer of executive power. The country has never introduced any term
limit for holding executive power. No effort has been made to decentralize
Power. Executive power has never been restrained by independent and impartial
institutions, civil society or an enlightened citizenry. The APRC has
transformed the constitutional instruments to enable the mandate of district,
village and regional heads to be determined by the executive. It has eliminated
the second round of voting and introduces patronage at all level of national
life. Security of tenure is not guaranteed and access to development is
bargained for loyalty.
In your candid opinion was the PPP government a self perpetuating government?
The PPP regime started the history of self perpetuating rule. It has not left
any history of peaceful transfer of executive power either from one person to
another or one party to another for almost 30 years. It maintained all the
monarchical features in the executive. It could appoint and dismiss ministers
without the involvement of parliament. No term limit was placed on the
executive. No separation was made between party, president and the state. The
executive was above the scrutiny and restraint of Instruments, institutions,
civil society and an enlightened public. Patronage was the order of the day.
Why would anybody think that if Hamat Bah or Lawyer Darboe is voted in would
lead to a self perpetuating government?
No one should accuse them before they assume the office. What is not helpful is
the UDP leader’s comment that the Gambia does not have a history of self
perpetuating rule. I don’t know why he signed the memorandum of understanding of
NADD which states in article 2 that” The goal of the alliance is to put an end
to self-perpetuating rule, ensure the empowerment of the people so that they can
participate in sustainable development” NADD promised to put an end to the
history of self perpetuating rule by limiting the term of the flag bearer to one
so that a level ground would be created for multiparty contest.
In order to achieve your target goal, political parties must address the young
people’s urgent needs by creating jobs, reducing crime levels and even combating
AIDS pandemic that is reportedly claiming many lives globally?
The urgent needs of the young people for employment; the fight against crime and
the HIV/AID pandemic should be the concern of both Governments and opposition.
The Government has a duty to protect the civil, political, economic, social and
cultural rights of the citizenry. The opposition has a duty to make its positive
contributions while exposing the shortcomings of the government and offering
alternative policies.
Do you think Gambians will listen to you [the opposition] after your falling
apart?
The duty of Gambians is not to ignore opposition parties because they have
fallen apart but to listen to what they have to say in order to make informed
choices. This era is the era of the people. The people should no longer rely on
hearsay. They must challenge their leaders to engage in debates on all issues of
national importance. They should not see criticisms and exposures of
shortcomings as negative. They should see those initiatives as mechanisms to
access correct information to be able to make informed choices. The people could
only safeguard their sovereignty if they take ownership of their minds, seek
correct information in order to make informed choices. The battle for clarity in
the camp of the opposition is not a sign of disarray it is the only way to build
the credible opposition that could engage the APRC and prove to the Gambian
people that it can provide a better alternative. I am therefore inviting all
youths of intellect, character, skills and values to join us in this sovereign
national debate to define the future of this country. In this way each of us
will become a part of the architects of a destiny of liberty, dignity and
prosperity.
Finally is there any need for opposition parties to come together as a united
front?
The UDP has made its position very clear. It sees itself as the major opposition
party and that all other parties should embrace its leader as the flag bearer.
My position is that they should go to the people and promote that form of
Alliance.They should not make the mistake of the past by advocating for what
they do not believe in. I still maintain that NADD served UDP more than any
party in the Alliance. In short, by the time we sat to form an Alliance UDP had
boycotted the National Assembly elections and had promised never to participate
in elections until its conditions were met. How would UDP have come back into
the electoral process and not lose face, without the opposition front we formed?
It is the opposition coalition which enabled Kemeseng to gain the Jarra seat. He
lost the seat when he went back to the UDP. This should be food for thought. As
far as I am concerned I am going on to put my proposal to the people. I would
want a neutral nation builder to emerge, a man or woman who would accept to run
a transition government of between 2 to five years and then preside over a free
and fair elections that would give Gambia a good democratic start, for
governments to emerge which will only serve for no more than two terms and then
give way to others to serve. I hope all party leaders would eventually endorse
this and then be among the council of wise men and women who will select the
only candidate who will stand against President Jammeh.I will keep the media
informed of my grassroot consultation with the people. This time no party will
stand between me and the people. This is the last but one service I want to do
for the Gambian people, especially the future generation.
Source: The Daily News http://www.dailynews.gm/index.php?id=dn_home&tx_wecdiscussion[single]=84706 ****************************
email: [log in to unmask] URLs: http://www.gambia.dk Bantaba in Cyberspace: Http://www.gambia.dk/forums/ ****************************
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web
interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ ���������������������������������������������������������� To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ����������������������������������������������������������
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
|
